Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott announced on March 22, 2010, the State will be joining other states in challenging the health-care reform legislation that passed in the U.S. House last night 219-212.

"The federal health care legislation passed tonight violates the United States Constitution and unconstitutionally infringes upon Texans' individual liberties," said Abbott.

"To protect all Texans' constitutional rights, preserve the constitutional framework intended by our nation's founders, and defend our state from further infringement by the federal government, the State of Texas and other states will legally challenge the federal health care legislation," Abbott announced.

Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's office also confirmed they will file suit against the federal government indicating the health-care reform legislation is unconstitutional.

Abbott is expected to argue that the legislation, with a requirement that nearly every American has to be insured by 2014, violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

After President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, expected to be as early as Tuesday, several Attorney Generals have said they would file suits.

"At no time in our history has the government mandated its citizens buy a good or service," Cuccinelli said in a release on March 22, 2010.

Oh, don’t get me wrong!
I AGREE that there IS legitimate legal standing, but I also thought that was the case with the birth certificate issue as every citizen in this country is affected and HURT by the actions of a man who may not be a legal citizen!
But the courts shut it down and said “no legal standing.”
So, I figure the same thing will happen with this issue as well.
Still, we must fight!

Clearly, among the LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers of Congress spelled out in Article 1 Section 8, there is no provision for them forcing citizens to insure themselves or buy any other type of product or service.

Regulation of interstate commerce is not ‘the camel nose under the tent’, it is not ‘Archimedes lever that can move the world’, it is not a hammer that turns all problems into nails. It is a provision for Congress to mediate between the States in regards to regulating commerce.

It is well beyond time that the SCOTUS reigns in this abuse of the commerce clause such that there is NO activity by any citizen in any State that is theoretically free from Congressional regulation for its potential and/or tangential effect upon interstate commerce.

26
posted on 03/22/2010 6:44:47 AM PDT
by allmendream
(Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)

“Makes sense. But we are also forced to buy services of the government through confiscation of payroll taxes as in income taxes, FICA, et. al....simply because of our mere existence.”

No, that is not analagous, because no one can force you to work. Those taxes result from your free decision to work. If you choose to not work and just be destitute, you are free to do so. That is freedom. This is not.

Thank you so much for your decision to challenge the unconstitutional health care bill passed yesterday. I support you enthusiastically in this.

Why is this unconstitutional? There has to be some limit to what tyranny they can lump under the Commerce Clause and get away with it. By claiming the authority to issue an individual mandate to purchase a product against a citizen’s will, they assert or claim federal OWNERSHIP over the individual. There is no other way around it. This creates a relationship of servitude to the federal government. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to force individuals to buy a product or service. No one should be a slave of either an individual or the government.

Besides, if they are allowed the power to force this behavior as a condition of one’s existence, there will be NO LIMIT to what they can force individuals to do. What will it be next? Will they devise a bill to force us to purchase what they consider healthy food? Safe, or efficient cars? They could cloak anything under their expansive view of the Commerce Clause.

This must not be allowed to stand, or I fear they will become even more drunk with power and their “noble” egalitarian zeal. Who knows what will be next?

Violates the Commerce Clause as it regulates a non-transaction (not buying insurance) [the flip side of the 5th Amendment I guess]

This is a punitive tax and therefore a revenue gainer and should be proposed in the House, not the Senate. [Congress could evade all constitutional limits by taxing anyone who doesnt follow an order of any kind]

I have heard all these tossed about and it will be interesting to see if the USSC will at least rule on one of them. Favorably to the citizens of this country.

31
posted on 03/22/2010 7:18:39 AM PDT
by K-oneTexas
(I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))

How can any citizen of the United States of America have “no legal standing” with our own Supreme Court? That makes no sense whatsoever, but it is merely a symptom of the larger malady.

As for calling a constitutional convention, be careful what you wish for. We have a great constitution with an amendment process that works; we merely need to hold our elected officials to the letter and spirit of it.

My fears for a new constitutional convention are twofold: one, that the Saul Alinsky crowd will show up in droves to overload the proceedings, bogging it down with rhetoric and procedure, or simply intimidating our representatives in the same way they currently do so.

Second, who here doubts that our rights would be traded for false security in the name of keeping us safe? I can see the first and second amendments, for instance, being chucked out the window in favor of “security” measures. Do not think that “they” would never do that; we never thought that “they” would compel us, through the force of law, to purchase a good or service.

Progressives want a new constitutional convention. They crave it, for they are sure that their tactics would work, yet again, to bring about their ideal state. I am not at all certain the outcome would preserve liberty and the rule of law as we once knew it. We have a constitution; use it.

This is dangerous ground we tread.

32
posted on 03/22/2010 7:20:53 AM PDT
by ronnyquest
(There's a communist living in the White House! Now, what are you going to do about it?)

The Democrats also lied and scammed. On Saturday, they said that they had the votes, but it was NOT until Sunday that they swung the deal with Stupak and his pro-life DemocRats to actually get the votes needed.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.